^ 


J  K 


CO 

o 

Q 

>- 


:RSI'rY? 


OHN  ADDISON  FORTER 
PRIZE  IN  AMERICAN 

HISTORY 


First  Prize  Essay 


:>iv  'I'ri'    vKAi 


1902. 


UNIVEESITY  OF  CALIFOENIA  LIBEARY, 
BEEKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  oi 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


aUV»ott8to 


^^^^^9 


v^^ 


50m-7, 


AN  ESSAY 


ON 


The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Congressional  Caucus 

AS  A  Machine  for  Nominating  Candidates 

FOR  the  Presidency 


C.  S.  THOMPSON, 

OF  THE 

Class  of  1902, 
Academical  Department,  Yale  University. 


Awarded  First  Prize  in  the  jKompetition  for  the 

Year  1902. 


:5^^ 


5 


Z\ 


^^5 


Terms  of  Foundation 

of  the 

John  Addison  Porter  Prize  in  American  History. 


To    THE    President    and  Fellows    of   Yale  College   in  New- 
Haven  : 

Being  desirous  of  founding  a  permanent  memorial  of  my 
liusbaud,  the  late  John  Addison  Porter,  Yale  1878,  within  the 
Academic  Department,  of  which  he  was  a  graduate,  I,  Amy  Betts 
Porter,  of  Pomfret,  Connecticut,  submit  the  following  offer : 

(1)  I  will  forthwith  convey  to  the  President  and  Fellows  of 
Yale  College  the  sum  of  $2,000  cash,  for  a  permanent  endowment 
fund. 

(2)  The  income  of  this  fund  shall  in  each  year  be  paid  out  by 
said  Corporation  for  a  prize,  to  be  called  "  The  John  Addison 
Porter  Prize  in  American  History,"  which  shall  be  constituted 
and  continued  as  a  memorial  to  the  late  John  Addison  Porter, 
Yale,  1878,  Academic,  and  be  annually  so  announced  in  the 
University  Catalogue,  together  with  a  summary  of  the  conditions 
of  award  thereof. 

(3)  This  prize  is  established,  and  shall  be  annually  awarded, 
on  the  following  additional  conditions  : 

(A)  The  entire  income  of  the  fund  may  be  awarded  in  any 
year  for  a  single  prize,  or  it  may  be  divided  into  a  first  prize  of 
75%  and  a  second  prize  of  25%,  respectively,  of  said  income. 


265642 


(B)  The  prize  shall  be  open  to  competition  among  mem- 
bers of  the  Senior  and  Junior  Classes  in  the  Academic  Depart- 
ment, for  the  College  Year,  and  awarded  for  the  best  original 
essay  on  a  set  subject,  bearing  upon  the  Political,  Constitutional 
or  Economic,  History,  Condition  or  Future  of  the  United  States, 
including  its  Internal,  External  and  Foreign  Relations.  The 
prize  shall  be  awarded  by  three  judges,  who  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  President  of  the  University,  and  one  of  whom  shall  be  a 
graduate  of  the  Academic  Department,  of  at  least  10  years'  stand- 
ing. These  judges  shall  be  appointed  on  or  before  the  first  day 
of  the  second  Academic  term,  the  announcement  and  award  of 
the  prize  shall  be  made  at  Commencement  time. 

(C)  The  specific  subjects  shall  be  chosen  and  publicly  an- 
nounced within  the  first  two  weeks  of  the  first  Academic  term  of 
each  year,  and  preferably  before  Commencement  time  of  the 
preceding  College  year.  Suggestions  as  to  the  length  and  char- 
acter of  the  essays,  if  any,  shall  be  made  at  the  time  of  such  an- 
nouncement. 

(D)  If,  in  any  year,  in  the  opinion  of  the  judges,  none  of  the 
competing  essays  is  of  sufficient  excellence  to  merit  either  a  first 
or  second  prize,  the  prize  shall  not  be  awarded ;  but  the  surplus 
income  resulting  from  the  endowment,  in  such  case,  may  be 
added  to  the  principal,  or  disposed  of  by  the  Corporation  in 
some  other  way,  related  to  the  object  of  this  endowment. 

(E)  Essays  Submitted  in  competition  shall  be  handed  in  and 
transmitted  to  the  judges  not  later  than  March  1st  of  each  year. 
They  shall  be  under  cover,  signed  by  a  fictitious  name,  and  ac- 
companied by  the  real  name  of  the  writer  in  a  sealed  enclosure. 

(4)  The  terms  of  this  endowment  and  the  conditions  thereof, 
as  set  forth,  may  at  any  time  be  altered  by  agreement  between 
mvself  as  donor,  and  the  Corporation  of  Yale  College.  They 
may  also  be  altered  after  my  death,  by  unanimous  vote  of  the 
Corporation  of  Yale  College,  if  it  should  seem  for  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  College,  always  provided  that  the  general  character  of 


this  endowment,  as  a  lasting  memorial  to  the  person  specified, 
shall  not  be  changed,  and  that  the  income  of  the  fund  shall  in 
any  event,  continue  to  be  awarded  by  the  Corporation,  within 
the  student  body  which  shall,  in  the  future,  coiTespond  most 
nearly  to  the  present  Academic  department  of  Yale  College. 

(5)  The  Corporation  of  Yale  College,  in  consideration  of  the 
above  endowment,  agreis  to  perpetually  continue  the  annual 
award  of  a  Memorial  Prize,  as  above  constituted,  and  under  the 
above  conditions,  unless  altered  by  agreement,  or  by  vote  of  said 
Corporation,  as  herein  provided  for. 


Yale  University, 
Secretary's  Office. 


New  Haven,  Conn.,  May  18,  1901. 
Mrs.  Amy  Betts  Porteu, 

Pomfret,  Conn. 
My  Dear  Madam  :  I  have  the  honor   to   inform  you  that   the 
following  record  appears  in  the  Minutes   of   the   meeting   of  the 
Yale  Corporation  held  in  New  Haven  on  Tuesday,  May  14tli : 

"  The  President  read  a  communication  from  Mrs.  Amy  Betts 
Porter,  wife  of  the  late  John  Addison  Porter,  oflfering  to  give  two 
thousand  dollars  for  the  establishment  of  '  The  John  Addison 
Porter  Prize  in  American  History.'  The  Corporation  voted  to 
accept  the  offer  in  accordance  with  the  terms  indicated,  with 
hearty  thanks,  and  to  direct  the  Secretary  to  communicate  to  Mrs. 
Porter  the  high  appreciation  of  the  President  and  Fellows  for  her 

generous  thought  of  the  University." 

I  am.  Madam,  with  high  regard, 
Very  truly  yours, 

Anson  Phelps  Stokes,  Jr., 

Secretary. 


Pursuant  to  the  terms  of  the  foregoing  foundation,  the  follow- 
ing subjects  were  announced  for  the  competition  to  be  decided  in 
the  year  1902  : 

"  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Congressional  Caucus  as  a  Machine 
for  Nominating  Candidates  for  the  Presidency." 

"  French  Efforts  to  recover  Louisiana,  1780-1800." 

"  Did  the  Jay  Treaty  with  England  involve  a  violation  of  ex- 
isting treaties  with  France  ?  If  so,  was  the  ratification  of  the 
Jay  Treaty  justifiable  ?  " 

"  An  investigation  into  the  History  of  the  Lynching  of  Negroes 
in  the  South." 

"  The  American  Policy  of  Napoleon  III.,  1860-1867." 

Twelve  essays  in  all  were  submitted.  Five  of  them  were  on 
the  first  of  the  above  subjects,  one  was  on  the  second,  two  were 
on  the  third,  two  were  on  the  fourth,  and  two  were  on  the  fifth 
subject. 

The  President  of  Yale  University  appointed  the  following 
judges: 

Charles  Henry  Smith,  L.L.  D., 

Professor  of  American  History,  in  Yale  University. 

Edward  Villette  Rayolds,  D.  C.  L., 

Professor  of  Comparative  Constitutional  Lavs^  and  Civil  Government, 
in  Yale  University. 

Samuel  Rossiter  Betts,  B.  A.,  Yale  1875. 

The  Commiftee  of  Judges  made  the  following  award : 

We,  appointed  by  President  Hadley  judges  of  competition  for 
the  John  Addison  Porter  Prize  in  American  History,  having  ex- 
amined the  essays  submitted,  make  our  report  unanimously,  as 
follows  : 

We  award  a  first  prize  of  seventy-five  dollars  to  Charles  Sey- 
mour ThoraLpson,  of   the   Class  of   1902,  for  his  essay  entitled 


"  The  Rise  and  Fall  of   the  Congressional  Caucus  as   a  machine 
for  nominating  candidates  for  the  Presidency." 

We  award  a  second  prize  of  twenty-five  dollars  to  Henry 
Lee  Sweinhart,  of  the  Class  of  1902,  for  his  essay  entitled 
"French  efforts  to  recover  Louisiana,  1780-1800." 

We  also  desire  to  make  honorable  mention  of  Henry  William 
Hamlin,  of  the  Class  of  1902,  for  his  essay  entitled  "  Did  the 
Jay  Treaty  with  England  involve  a  violation  of  existing  treaties 
with  France  ?  If  so,  was  the  ratification  of  the  Jay  Treat}' 
Justifiable  ?  "  and  Eugene  Heitler  Lehman,  of  the  Class  of 
1902,  for  his  essay  entitled  "  An  investigation  into  the  History 
of  the  Lynching  of  Negroes  in  the  South." 

Yale  University,  June  8,  1902. 

Charles  H.  Smith. 
Edward  V.  Raynolds. 
Samuel  R.  Betts. 


9  • 


The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Congressional  Caucus  as  a  machine 

FOR   nominating   CANDIDATES   FOR   THE    PRESIDENCY, 

hy 
C.  S.  THOMPSON, 

New   Haven,    Connecticut, 
Academical  Department,  Class  of  1902. 


Bibliography. 
I.  Primary  Sources. 


1.  Neiospapers  and  Periodicals. 

Most  of  the  information  for  this  essay  has  been  gathered  from 
this  source.  The  papers  which  have  been  consulted  are  the  fol- 
lowing (Dates  given  here  are  the  dates  of  issues  which  could  be 
consulted  at  the  University  Library)  : 

"  The  National  Intelligencer  "  (and  "  Washington  Adver- 
tiser ").  Tri-weekly,  published  at  Washington,  D.  C,  1811,  and 
later. 

"  The  New  York  Herald,"  Semi-weekly,  published  in  New 
York.     From  1802. 

"  The  Columbian  Centinel  "  (and  "  Mass.  Federalist ").  Semi- 
weekly.     Published  at  Boston. 

'•  The  U.  S.  Gazette  "  ("  for  the  Country  ")  Semi-weekly. 
Published  at  Philadelphia,  1802-1808,  1813,  1814. 

"  The  Weekly  Register."  Ed.  by  H.  Niles.  Baltimore,  Md. 
1811-1836. 

"  The  American  Register  ;  or.  Summary  Review  of  History, 
Politics  and  Literature."  Ed.  by  R.  Walsh,  Jr.  2  Vol.  Phila. 
1817. 

2.  Annals  of  Congress. 

For  the  debates  in  Congress  relative  to  the  caucus,  the  sources 
are  :  "  The  Debates  and  Proceedings  in  the  Congress  of  the  U. 
S."     Compiled  by  Jos.  Gales,  Sr.     Washington,  1834. 


10 

"  Abridgment  of  Debates  of  Congress."  1789-1850.  By  Thos. 
H.  Benton.     16  Vol.     N.  Y.     1857-61. 

3.  Collected  Writings  of  Contemporaries. 

The  following  works  have  served  for  knowledge  of  the  political 
character  of  the  time  more,  in  general,  than  for  data  respecting 
the  caucus. 

"  The  Writings  of  George  Washington."  Ed.  Jared  Sparks. 
12  Vols.     Boston,  1835. 

"  The  Works  of  John  Adams."  Ed.  0.  F.  Adams.  10  Vol. 
Boston.     1853. 

"  The  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson."  Ed.  B.  L.  Ford.  10 
Vol.     N.  Y.     1895. 

"The  Works  of  Alexander  Hamilton."  Ed.  J.  C.  Hamilton. 
7  Vol.     N.  Y.     1851. 

"  The  Writings  of  Albert  Gallatin."  Ed.  Henry  Adams.  3 
Vol.     Phila.     1879. 

"  Letters  and  Other  Writings  of  James  Madison."  Pub.  by 
Order  of  Congress,     4  Vol.     Phila.     1866. 

"  The  Writings  of  James  Monroe."  Ed.  S.  M.  Hamilton.  5 
Vol.    N.  Y.     1898-1901. 

"  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams."  Ed.  C.  F.  Adams.  Phila 
1877.     12  Vol. 

4.  Other  Contemporary   Works. 

"  History  of  the  Republic  of  the  U.  S.  of  America,"  as  traced 
in  the  writings  of  Alexander  Hamilton  and  his  contemporaries. 
J.  C.  Hamilton.     7  Vol.     N.  Y.     1859. 

"Memoirs  of  the  administrations  of  Washington  and  John 
Adams."  Ed.  from  the  papers  of  Oliver  Wolcott  by  George 
Gibbs.     2  Vol     N.  Y.     1846. 

"  Familiar  Letters  on  Public  Characters  and  Public  Events.' 
By  Wm.  Sullivan.  Boston.  1834  (of  no  direct  bearing  on  the 
caucus). 

"  Biographical  Dictionary."  By  John  Eliot.  Boston.  1809. 
Article  on  "  Joseph  Warren." 


11 

"  History  of  the  Rise,  Progress  and  Establishment  of  the  In- 
dependence of  the  U.  S.  A."  By  Wm.  Gordon,  4  Vol.  London. 
1788. 

"  Constitutional  Eepublicanism  as  Opposed  to  Fallacious 
Federalism."  Benjamin  Austin,  Jr.  Boston.  1803.  Paper 
XX.,  page  87,  "  Congressional  Caucus." 

'•'  The  Olive  Branch."  By  M.  Carey.  Phila.  1817.  Chap. 
78,  page  439,  "  Congressional  Caucuses  for  President  and  Vice- 
President,"  and  appendix,  page  9,  on  "  Caucus." 

"  Historical  Sketches  of  the  U.  S."  from  1815  to  1830."  By 
Samuel  Perkins.     X.  Y.     1830. 

"  Thirty  Years'  View."  By  Thos.  H.  Benton.  2  Vol.  N.  Y. 
1856. 

"  The  Federalist,"  a  "  Commentary  on  the  Constitution  of  the 
U.  S."  By  Alexander  Hamilton,  John  Jay  and  James  Madison. 
Ed.  H.  C.  Lodge.     N.  Y.     1888. 

II.  Secondary  Sources. 

-  1.   Qeneral  Jlisfories. 

"  The  History  of  the  U.  S.  of  America."  Richard  Hildreth 
(1497-1821).     6  Vol.     N.  Y.     1877. 

"  History  of  the  U.  S.  of  America."  James  Schouler.  5  Vol. 
N.  Y.     1891. 

"  History  of  the  People  of  the  U.  S.  from  the  Revolution  to 
the  Civil  War."     John  B.  McMaster.     5  Vol.     N.  Y.     1883. 

"  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the  U.  S."  H.  Von 
Hoist,  translated  by  J.  J.  Lalor  and  A.  B.  Mason.  Chicago, 
1889.     Volume   on   period   1750-1833,  pages   168  ff. 

2.   Other  General   Woi'ks. 

"  The  American  Electoral  System."  Chas.  A.  O'Neil.  New 
York  and  London,  1889  (containing  many  references  to  contem- 
porary sources). 

"  The  American  Caucus  System,  its  Origin,  Purpose  and 
Utility.     By  Geo.  W.  Lawton.     New  York  and  London,  1885. 


12 

"  Nominations  for  Elective  Office  in  the  U.  S."  By  F.  W. 
Dallinger.     New  York,  1897. 

"  Political  Parties  in  the  U.  S."  By  Jesse  Macy.  New 
York,  1900. 

"  Our  Presidents  and  How  We  Make  Them."  A.  K. 
McChire.     New  York  and  London,  1900. 

"  History  of  the  Presidency."  By  Edward  Stanwood. 
Boston  and  New  York. 

"  History  of  Political  Parties  in  the  State  of  N.  Y."  J.  D. 
Hammond.     2  Volumes.     Cooperstown,  1846. 

"  The  Statesman's  Manual."  Compiled  from  official  sources. 
By  Edwin  Williams.     4  Volumes.     New  York,  1854. 

"  Political  Text-Book  for  1860,  with  a  brief  view  of  Presi- 
dential Nominations  and  elections."  Compiled  by  Horace 
Greeley  and  John  F.  Cleveland.     New  York,  1860. 

"  Life  of  Albert  Gallatin."  By  Henry  Adams.  Philadel- 
phia, 1879." 

"  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Nominating  Caucus,  Legislative 
and  Congressional."  M.  Ostrogorski,  in  American  Historical 
Review.     January,  1900.     Volume  V.,  No.  2,  Page  254. 


13 


The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Congressional  Caucus. 

From  the  earliest  period  in  our  history  the  caucus  system  has 
been  an  important  part  of  the  American  political  machinery. 
Long  prior  to  the  Revolution  it  was  customary  for  political 
leaders  to  meet  in  caucus,  that  is,  in  secret  assembly,  and  de- 
liberate on  public  affairs  and  nominate  candidates  for  office. 
William  Gordon,  a  historian  of  the  colonial  conflict  with  England, 
dates  this  practice  from  a  time  not  later  than  1724.  Writing  in 
1774  he  thus  describes  the  caucus  system  :  *  "  The  word  caucus, 
and  its  derivative  caucussing,  are  often  used  in  Boston.  *  *  * 
All  my  repeated  applications  to  different  gentlemen  have  not 
furnished  me  with  a  satisfactory  account  of  the  origin  of  caucus, 
*  *  *  the  word  is  not  of  novel  invention.  More  than  fifty  years 
ago,  Mr.  Samuel  Adam's  father,  and  twenty  others,  oue  or  two 
from  the  north  end  of  the  town,  where  all  the  ship  business  is 
carried  on,  used  to  meet,  make  a  caucus,  and  lay  their  plans  for 
introducing  certain  persons  iuto  places  of  trust  and  power. 
When  they  had  settled  it,  they  separated,  and  used  each  their 
particular  influence  within  his  own  circle.  He  and  his  friends 
would  furnish  themselves  with  ballots,  iocluding  the  names  of  the 
parties  fixed  upon,  which  they  distributed  on  the  days  of  election. 
By  acting  in  concert,  together  with  a  careful  and  extensive  dis- 
tribution of  their  ballots,  they  generally  carried  the  elections  to 
their  own  mind.  In  like  manner  it  was  that  Mr.  Samuel  Adams 
first  became  a  representative  for  Boston." 

How  implicitly  we  may  place  confidence  in  this  account  has 
been  questioned,  for  in  no  other  source  do  we  find  reference  to 
the  caucus  at  so  early  a  date,  and  Gordon's  statement  seems  in- 
consistent with  the  more  satisfactorily  authenticated  account 
in  the  diary  of  John  Adams.  Under  the  date  of  February,  1763, 
we  find  in  the  diary  the  following  entry,  the  earliest  known  men- 


*  William  Gordon,  "  History  of  the   Rise,  Progress,  and  Establishment   of 
the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America."     I.,  365,  note. 


14 

tiou  of  a  caucus  :  "  This  day  learned  that  the  Caucus  Club  meets 
at  certain  times,  in  the  garret  of  Tom  Dawes,  the  adjutant  of  the 
Boston  Regiment.  He  has  a  large  bouse,  and  he  has  a 
movable  partition  in  his  garret  which  be  takes  down,  and  the 
whole  club  meets  in  one  room.  There  they  smoke  tobacco  till 
you  cannot  see  from  one  end  of  the  room  to  the  other.  There 
they  drink  flip,  I  suppose,  and  there  they  choose  a  moderator, 
who  puts  questions  to  the  vote  regularly  ;  and  selectmen,  as- 
sessors, collectors,  wardens,  fire-wards  and  representatives,  are 
regularly  chosen  before  they  are  chosen  in  the  town."*  This 
seems  to  imply  that  the  caucus  was  in  1763  a  new  institution,  of 
which  Adams  had  not  previously  been  aware,  and  had  it  really 
existed  for  fifty  years  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  John  Adams 
should  not  have  heard  of  it.  The  only  way  in  which  this  diffi- 
culty can  be  ex|)lained  is  to  interpret  the  passage  not  as  an  at- 
tempt to  give  information  concerning  a  new  custom  which  prior 
to  that  time  had  had  no  existence,  but  merely  as  a  de- 
scription of  the  particular  caucus  club  of  which  one  Tom 
Dawes  was  patron,  and  into  which  Adams  liad  just  been  in- 
trodnced.  Gordon,  being  an  Englishman,  and  hearing  in 
Boston  for  the  first  time  the  word  caucus,  took  pains  to  examine 
into  the  origin  of  the  term  and  to  describe  its  essential  features. 
But  Adams,  who  in  Boston  had  long  been  familiar  with  the  name 
and  practice,  speaks  only  of  the  peculiar  features  of  the  most 
recent  development  of  the  caucus  ;  whereas,  had  he  never  before 
known  of  the  existence  of  such  a  practice,  he  would  in  all  prob- 
ability, like  Gordon,  have  said  a  word  for  the  origin  and  meaning 
of  the  term.t 

Gordon's  statement,  though,  supported    b}^  the   testimony  of 


*  John  Adams,  Works,  II.,  144. 

+  See  also  a  passage  in  Eliot's  "  Biographical  Dictionary,"  page  472,  which 
seems  to  contradict  the  account  given  by  Gordon.  But  this,  too,  may  be  par- 
tially explained  as  a  reference  to  a  particular  set  of  caucussers,  inasmuch  as  it 
dates  the  practice  from  1768,  whereas  we  know  from  John  Adams  that  it  ex- 
isted at  least  in  1763. 


15 

no  other  writer,  is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  he  says  nothing 
which  in  itself  is  unreasonable  or  difficult  of  credence,  and  that 
his  assertions  are  made  on  the  authority  of  men  who 
would  be  most  likely  to  possess  proper  informa- 
tion.* Inasmuch  as  there  appears  no  motive  which 
could  have  induced  him  to  give  a  perverted  account  of  the  infor- 
mation he  gathered,  we  may  accept  his  assertions  as  the  state- 
ments of  men  then  living.  His  "  repeated  applications  "  for  an 
account  of  the  origin  of  the  term  received  no  satisfactory  reply, 
but  it  is  significant  that  he  makes  mention  of  "  one  or  two  "  in 
the  caucuses  of  1724  "  from  the  north  end  of  the  town,  where 
all  the  ship  business  is  carried  on.'^  Now  there  is  apparently 
nothing  so  noteworthy  in  the  presence  of  these  delegates  from 
the  ship-building  district  that  Gordon  should  have  made  such 
reference  to  them.  His  informants  must,  therefore,  have  told  him 
of  the  "  caulkers'  club,"  which  fifty  years  ago  had  been  nick- 
named the  "  caucus "  ;  and  this  derivation,  though  not  quite 
satisfactory  to  his  mind,  Ijecomes  more  acceptable  when  he  learns 
that  one  or  two  of  the  caulkers  were  present,  as  alleged,  iu  1724. 
Hence,  although  we  cannot  dogmatically  assert  that  the  caucus 
was  in  tliat  year  in  existence,  we  may  regard  this  view  as  in  all 
probability  correct. 

In  speaking  of  the  caucus  thus  far  we  have  had  in  mind  more 
than  is  implied  by  references  to  the  informal  conferences  and 
secret  deliberations  which  have  always  been  characteristic  of 
mankind.  Mr.  Ostrogorski  says  that  the  first  caucus  was  held 
by  Eve  and  the  serpent  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  and  ridicules 
discussion  of  the  pre-Revolutionary  caucus  as  irrelevant  and 
utterly  fruitless.!  But  these  early  meetings  were  of  more  imme- 
diate connection  with  the  Congressional  caucus  than  he  thinks. 
In  order  to  understand  any  institution  we  must  study  its  origin, 
however  remote  that  may  be  from  its  fully-developed  form  ;  and 


*  Cf.  Gordon,  preface. 

t  American  Historical  Rc^vicw,  Janaary,  1900.    Vol.  V.,  No.  2,  page  254. 


16 

on  examination  in  the  present  case,  we  discover  that  after  all, 
the  Congressional  caucus  is  not  far  removed  from  the  singular 
assemblage  which  met  in  Tom  Dawes's  attic,  or  the  ship-builders' 
conferences  of  still  earlier  date.  A  study  of  the  Congressional 
caucus  necessitates  a  survey  of  the  caucus  system  from  the  time 
when  it  was  first  recognized  as  a  system,  with  a  name,  an  organi- 
zation and  a  purpose.  As  such  the  caucus  dates  from  1763,  if 
not  earlier,  and  from  that  time  develops  slowly  through  the 
Colonial  and  Revolutiouavy  period,  until,  under  the  influence  of 
new  and  peculiar  conditions,  it  appears  in  the  form  of  the 
Congressional  nominating  caucus. 

After  the  war,  the  clubs  which  had  formerly  convened  secretly 
in  attics  or  other  places  secluded  from  the  censorious  inquisitive- 
ness  of  the  Tories,  threw  off  the  mask  which  necessity  had 
bound  upon  them  and  caucuses  were  held  freely  and  without 
disguise.*  Eapidly  they  became  established  as  a  prominent 
factor  in  religious  and  social  life  as  well  as  in  politics,  so  that 
John  Adams  wrote  in  1816,  "  We  have  Congressional  caucuses, 
State  caucuses,  county  caucuses,  city  caucuses,  district  caucuses, 
town  caucuses,  parish  caucuses,  and  Sunday  caucuses  at  church 
doors.t  This  presents  "  caucussing "  as  a  distinctive  feature, 
which  it  has  ever  been,  of  the  American  representative  system. 
For  twenty  years  in  the  form  of  the  Congressional  nominating 
caucus,  it  focused  upon  its  methods  and  practices  the  eyes  of  the 
nation.  Consigned  then  to  comparative  oblivion,  it  survives  in 
the  present  forms  of  Congressional  or  legislative  caucuses 
convened  for  purposes  of  party  legislation,  and  in  the  represent- 
ative "  primaries  "  to  which  have  been  assigned  the  nominating 
functioDS  of  the  Congressional  caucus. 

In  these  successive  periods  of  its  growth  the  caucus  has  as- 
sumed aspects  so  varied  that  generalization  is  difficult.  Although 
the  caucus  and  primaries  to-day  answer  the  purposes  which  gave 

*  Cf.  Eliot,  "  Biographical  Dictionary,"  472. 
t  Works,  VI.,  468. 


17 

occasion  for  the  caucuses  familiar  to  xlclams  and  Jefiferson,  to 
TMadison,  Monroe  and  Jackson,  in  modes  of  convening,  in  princi- 
ples of  procedure  and  in  influence  thej  are  changed.  Any  defi- 
nition, therefore,  to  be  applicable  with  even  reasonable  accuracy 
to  all  forms  in  which  the  caucus  has  appeared  must,  obviously, 
be  vague  and  lacking  in  specific  connotation.  Failing  to  discover 
a  more  satisfactory  expression  we  adopt  the  definition  given  by 
Gordon.  The  caucus,  in  his  words,  consists  of  "a number  of 
persons,  whether  more  or  less,  met  together  to  consult  upon 
adopting  and  prosecuting  some  scheme  of  policy  for  carrying  a 
favorite  point."*  This  appears  to  us  to  apply  equally  to  the 
caucus  of  Revolutionary  days,  of  which  it  was  written,  to  the 
Congressional  caucus  and  to  the  nominating  and  other  party  ma- 
chinery of  our  era.  It  is  at  the  same  time  sufliciently  explicit 
and  significant  to  afford  an  insight  into  the  more  apparent  evils 
and  advantages  of  the  system. 

For  the  words  we  have  quoted  imply  union,  and  union  means 
strength.  In  any  situation  vi'here  skill,  learning  and  discretion 
are  required,  the  best  results  can  be  obtained  by  co-operation 
and  consultation.  Whatever  the  point  to  be  pursued  (and  no- 
where has  this  been  more  recognized  than  in  the  American  prac- 
tice), the  aims  of  justness  and  wisdom  can  be  best  attained  by 
such  union  and  co-operation  as  the  caucus,  when  rightly  used, 
affords.  But,  unfortunately,  the  caucus  is  also  productive  of 
evil.  The  system  described  in  our  definition  implies  more  or  less 
secrecy  ;  and  whenever  any  body,  meeting  in  conclave  apart  from 
the  people,  pursues  a  "  favorite  point,"  there  is  always  the  temp- 
tation to  profit  by  the  shelter  of  secrecy  ;  to  adopt  doubtful 
means  to  a  questionable  end.  Combinations,  intrigues  and  cor- 
ruption stand  ready  to  enter  whenever  ambition  or  jealousy 
opens  the  door.  Whether  jealousy  and  ambition  are  to  tri- 
umph over  honesty  and  justice  depends  wholly  on  the  men 
who   compose    the   caucus,    who   alone     determine    whether    its 

♦Gordon,  I.,  365,  note. 


18 

action  shall  be  laudable  or  blameworthy.  If  the  consultations 
are  made  "  pro  bono  ;j)wJ^?co,"  great  advantage  may  be  gained. 
But  if  they  are  made  to  serve  private  interests  rather 
than  the  public  welfare  they  cannot  receive  too  great  con- 
demnation. 

The  caucus,  as  it  appeared  in  Congress,  was  peculiarly  sub- 
ject to  these  abuses.  In  several  important  respects  it  differed 
from  the  earlier  meetings  in  which  it  originated.  In  the 
first  place,  being  not  local,  but  national,  and  hence  free  from 
the  salutary  restraint  of  close  connection  with  a  small  community, 
it  could  the  more  easily  defeat  the  public  will.  Secondly,  its 
object  wafj  the  appointment  of  persons  to  the  highest  offices 
under  the  government,  and  in  proportion  as  the  value  of  the 
stakes  increases  the  temptation  to  intrigue  and  dishonesty  becomes 
greater.  Moveover,  it  met  only  on  stated  occasions,  for  the 
transaction  of  regular  business,  and  thus  lacked  the  informality 
and  frankness  which  attended,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  the 
early  caucus.  For  these  reasons  the  Congressional  caucus  was 
subject  to  most  careful  scrutiny  by  the  people,  and  would  be 
enabled  to  maintain  its  power  only  as  long  as  it  complied  vvitli 
their  will. 

The  dangers  inherent  in  the  caucus  system  are  of  precisely  the 
sort  against  which  the  statesmen  of  1787  strove  most  earnestly 
to  guard.  The  years  following  the  Revolution  in  America 
were  a  time  of  political  jealous}^  and  suspicion.  A  union  had 
been  formed,  but  it  was  a  union  of  elements  so  disunited  that  the 
members  regarded  one  another  with  distrust  and  envy,  and  to  the 
central  government  begrudged  every  power,  every  authority.  In 
political  coalitions,  intiigues,  and  organized  partisanship,  were 
seen  the  enemies  of  liberty  and  republican  government,  and  the 
permanence  and  efficiency  of  the  newly-formed  union  was  con- 
sidered to  be  founded  on  its  independence  of  political  machina- 
tions. Especially  important  was  it  that  the  President  of  the 
nation  should  be  removed  from  the  evil  influences  of  partisan 
strife,  in  order  that  in  him  might  be  found  the  final  balance  of 
the   whole  nicely  balanced   system.     How  then  did  it  come  that 


19 

a  practice  so  fraught  with  the  dreaded  danger  obtained  recogni- 
tion, and  that  almost  immediately  the  President's  office  became 
the  centre  of  systematic,  undisguised  caucusing  ?  What  circum- 
stances obtained  for  the  practice  public  recognition  and  na- 
tional influence  ?  How  did  it  creep  undetected  into  the  national 
legislature  and  there,  though  this  body  had  been  expresslj'  de- 
nied a  right  to  aid  in  choosing  a  President,  maintain  for  twenty 
years  triumphant  supremacy  ?  These  questions  find  their  answer 
in  the  conditions  and  tendencies  of  the  first  decade  of  our  gov- 
ernment. 

In  striving  to  free  the  government  from  politics,  the  Conven- 
tion were  combating  hopelessly  with  lawt3  and  forces  of  nature 
which  forbid  a  non-partisan  government.  The  country,  after 
having  thrown  off  its  allegiance  to  the  English  throne,  was  not 
content  to  fold  its  hands  and  see  a  power  within  its  own  num- 
bers usurp  the  control  of  affairs.  Hence  when  the  Electoral 
College  was  provided  for  the  selection  of  President,  to  guard 
against  the  ignorance  of  the  people  and  the  scheming  of  poli- 
ticians, neither  politicians  nor  people  were  content  with  a  pro- 
vision which  denied  them  a  share  in  the  all-important  duty  of 
President-making.  The  arts  of  the  politician  can  be  better 
exercised  on  the  people,  ill-informed  and  easily  susceptible  to 
persuasion  and  argument,  than  on  a  select  body  supposedly  of 
the  highest  understanding  and  integrity,  convened  for  the  purpose 
of  exercising  their  own  uninfluenced  judgment.  The  people,  on 
their  part,  were  jealous  of  the  "  rights  "  for  which  they  had 
been  fighting,  and  resented  the  assertion  that  they  were 
incapable  of  choosing  wisely.  From  all  classes,  therefore, 
came  opposition.  "  Do  I  choose  Samuel  Miles,"  wrote  one 
citizen,  "  to  determine  for  me  whether  John  Adams  or  Thomas 
Jefferson  is  the  fittest  man  for  President  of  these  United  States  ? 
No,  I  choose  him  to  act,  not  to  think."  * 

The  establishment  of  this  theory  deprived  the  electoral  col- 
lege of  its  two  functions  of  nomination  and  election.     The  privi- 

*  VideO'Ne'il,  "  The  American  Electoral  System,"  65. 


20 

lege  of  election  was  at  once  assumed  b}'  the  people,  but  owing  to 
peculiarities  in  the  political  situation  a  formal  nominating  system 
was  not  at  first  necessary,  and  this  fact  was  one  circumstance 
favorable  to  the  gradual  establishment  of  the  caucus.  Not  until 
1804,  and  not  completely  till  1808,  when  the  early  aspects  of 
politics  had  changed,  can  the  caucus  be  said  to  have  been  regularly 
established  in  Congress  in  its  fully  developed  form.  But  the  pre- 
ceding years,  from  1789  to  1804,  were  years  of  preparation.  Al- 
though we  have  no  record  of  anything  in  the  first  two  cam- 
paigns approaching  a  formal  caucus  of  members  of  Congress,  it  is 
certain  that  Hamilton  and  other  national  leaders  were  active  in 
the  old  practice  of  caucussing  in  private  for  the  attainment  of 
desired  ends.  The  subject  of  the  Vice -Presidency  was  biought 
under  the  power  of  personal  influence,  secret  consultations,  and 
reciprocal  compromises,  and  the  choices  were  not  made  without 
much  scheming.*  Thus  was  made  apparent  the  truth  to  which 
John  Adams  later  gave  expression  with  the  confident  assertion 
that  the  caucuses  which  have  always  existed,  whether  for  good 
or  evil,  are  unavoidable.  "  You  cannot  prevent  them,"  he  wrote, 
"  any  more  than  you  can  prevent  gentlemen  from  conversing  at 
their  lodgings."  t  It  was  only  a  question  of  time  before  the 
rapidly-developing  political  parties  should  call  for  open  and 
not  secret  deliberation. 

The  rapid  divergence  of  party  interests  led  to  the  need  of  a 
systematic  method  of  nomination,  in  order  that  the  people  might 
know,  in  voting  for  electors,  for  whom  they  were  virtually  casting 
their  presidential  vote.  For  this  purpose  there  was  need  of  a  body 
which  should  be  able  to  ascertain  as  accurately  as  possible 
the  opinion  of  the  people,  and  which  should  impart  to  its  decision 
sufficient  weight  to  obtain  the  support  of  the  party  throughout 
the  country.  These  purposes  are  answered  to-day  by  the  familiar 
national  convention.     But  the  country  was  not  yet  prepared  for  a 


*  Cf.  John  Adams,  Works,  VI.,  543,  543.     Hamilton,    Works,    V.,  526,  527, 
534,  535. 

t  Adams,  W^orks,  VI.  544. 


21 

national  nominating  convention,  means  of  transportation  being 
still  so  unsatisfactory  as  to  render  such  a  device  impracticable. 
Even  under  the  dire  necessity  of  the  Confederation  it  had  proved 
almost  impossible  to  obtain  a  general  convention  from  the  States, 
for  although  the  State  Convention  was  familiar  to  all,  public 
ideas  of  national  union  and  consolidation  were  not  yet  fully 
formed.  For  a  nominating  system,  therefore,  recourse  must  be 
had  to  some  device  already  at  hand. 

Here  we  see  clearly  the  bearing  of  the  early  informal,  non- 
oflScial  meeting  upon  the  later  nominating  caucus.  In  many  parts 
of  the  country  the  custom  of  self-nomination  had  been  current. 
But  this  method,  though  perhaps  suited  to  a  small  and  rural 
community,  was  manifestly  unavailable  for  the  purpose  of  a 
national  nomination.  Self-nomination  would  carry  with  it  no 
weight  beyond  the  candidate's  own  district,  and  would  harm 
rather  than  benefit  him  in  the  eyes  of  his  democratic  country- 
men. Elsewhere,  especially  in  New  England,  candidates  had 
been  formally  nominated  in  town  or  district  meetings,  supple- 
mented by  committees  of  correspondence  and  informal  confer- 
ences behind  which  was  felt  the  influence  of  the  private  caucus. 
Had  it  not  been  for  the  long  period  during  which  prominent  citi- 
zens met  in  caucus  and  decided  questions  for  the  people,  this 
device  for  securing  union  on  a  presidential  candidate  could  not 
have  presented  itself.  But  the  system  of  caucus  nominations  had 
installed  itself  as  a  regular  part  of  the  town  and  State  adminis- 
tration. In  town  meeting  it  had  proved  sufficient  for  the  purposes 
of  local  nomination,  and  for  State  nomination  the  caucus  of  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  was  a  higher  development.  In  default  of 
a  better  method  of  national  nomination  nothing  was  more  natural 
than  that  the  work  should  be  intrusted  to  a  caucus  of  the  national 
legislators.* 


*  For  a  good  summary  of  early  nominating  systems  see  Dallinger  "Nom- 
inations for  Elective  Office,"  p.  3  ff.  Cf.  also,  Ostrogorski,  American  Histor- 
ical Review,  Vol.  V.,  No.  2,  page  356  S. ;  and  J.  S.  Walton,  "  Nominating  Con- 
ventions in  Pennsylvania,"  American  Historical  Review,  Vol.  H.,  No.  2.  p. 
263  ff. 


22 

The  first  Congressional  nominating  caucus  was  held  in  1796. 
In  the  summer  of  that  year  a  majority  of  the  Republican  mem- 
bers of  Congress  met  and  named  Thomas  Jefferson  and  Aaron 
Burr  as  their  candidates.*  But  the  meeting  seems  to  have  been 
the  result  of  a  common  undersianding  rather  than  a  formal  call 
or  announcement,  and  no  details  of  its  proceedings  are  known. 
The  Federalists  in  this  year  nominated  John  Adams  and  Thomas 
Pinckney,  but  whether  their  agreement  was  reached  in  any  meet- 
ing is  not  certain.  The  nominations  were  made  after  much  con- 
sultation and  intriguing  among  the  leaders,  in  which  there  was 
thought  to  have  been  a  desire  on  the  part  of  some  to  place 
Pinckney  in  the  President's  chair,  accepting  Adams  for  second 
place  as  a  troublesome  necessity,  because  of  his  popularity  with 
the  party.f  But,  in  the  lack  of  any  conclusive  testimony,  we 
see  no  reason  to  think  that  any  caucus  was  held  by  the  Federal 
party  at  this  third  election.:}: 

The  contest  of  1800  first  brought  the  caucus  into'prominence. 
Caucuses  were  held  in  both  parties  and  candidates  were  formally 
settled  upon.  The  Federal  members  of  Congress,  previous  to 
their  adjournment,  held  a  meeting  and  decided  that  Adams  and 
C.  C.  Pinckney  should  be  their  candidates,  and  that  "  fair  and 
honorable  endeavors  should  be  used  by  them  in  their  respective 
States  to  obtain  concurrent  votes  "  for  the  two  candidates.  II  The 
Republicans  in  this  year  held  two  caucus  meetings.  At  the  first 
Mr.  Jefferson  was  unanimously  chosen  candidate  for  the  Presi- 
dency, and  it  was  agreed  that  the  Vice-President  should  be  taken 
from  New  York  State.l    Beyond  this  no  immediate  decision  could 


*  Gibbs'  "Memoirs  of  the  Administrations  of  Washington  and  Adams,"  II., 
4S8. 

+  Adams,  Works,  VI.,  543.     Hamilton,  VI.,  185,  186. 

J  In  immediate  connection  with  the  mention  of  the  Republican  caucus 
Wolcott  saj'S  :  "  The  Federal  party  nominated  John  Adams  and  Thomas  Pinck- 
ney "  (G'.bbs,  II..  488).  But  this  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  formal  caucus  nom- 
ination. 

II  Letters  of  James  McHenry,  May  20  and  July  22,  1800  ;  Gibbs,  II.,  346-47, 
384. 

t  N.  Y.  Herald,  February  1,  1804.  Cf.  also  Hammond,  "Political  Parties 
in  the  State  of  New  York,"  I.,  137,  and  Niles's  Register,  February  28,  1824. 


23 

be  reached.  Chancellor  Livingston,  Governor  George  Clint 
and  Aaron  Burr  were  mentioned,  but  the  Chancellor  was  in- 
capacitated by  infirmity,  and  the  contest  narrowed  down  to 
Clinton  and  Burr.  Unable  to  reach  a  decision,  the  caucus 
expressed  no  preference  for  either  of  the  two,  but  postponed 
action  till  the  candidates  could  be  sounded  on  the  subject. 
Governor  Clinton,  when  interviewed  by  Commodore  Nicholson, 
unwillingly  consented  to  the  use  of  his  name  if  in  the  judgment 
of  the  party  managers  it  was  necessary  to  the  election  of  Jeffer- 
son. Burr  was  next  consulted,  and,  proving  a  willing  and  an 
acceptable  candidate,  received  the  nomination  at  a  second  meet- 
ing of  the  caucus.* 

The  meetings  of  this  year  reveal  the  ease  with  which  the 
caucus  lent  itself  to  underhand  negotiations  and  duplicity, 
Thomas  Jefferson  was  without  question  the  choice  of 
the  Republican  party  for  President,  and  the  sight  of 
Aaron  Burr  taking  the  oath  of  chief  executive  would 
have  been  as  repugnant  to  them  as  would  the  spec- 
tacle of  John  Adams  again  ascending  his  mythical 
throne.  But  Burr  had  been  offended  at  the  lack  of  sup- 
port which  he  had  suffered  in  the  preceding  election,!  and  re- 
fused to  be  considered  a  candidate  unless  positive  assurances 
were  given  him  that  the  best  efforts  of  the  party  should  be  used 
to  obtain  for  him  an  equal  vote  with  Jefferson.:]:  The  caucus 
agreed,  and  faithful  assurance  was  given  Burr  by  the  most  re- 
spected members  of  the  party.ll  Nevertheless  it  was  well  un- 
derstood that  Jefferson  was  the  candidate  whom  the  caucus  de- 
sired for  President,  and  that  nothing  was  further  from  their  plans 
than  that  Burr  should  receive  an  equal  number  of  votes.  A 
similar  duplicity  was  manifested  in  the  Federal  proceedings.     In 


*N.  Y.  Herald,  Feb.  1,  1804. 

t  See  Niles's  Register,  December  27,    1833.     Also  N.    Y.  Herald,  February 
1,  1804.     And  Wolcott's  letter  to  Edwards,  1824  ;  Gibbs,  II.,  488. 
tWolcott,  in  Gibbs,  II.,  488. 
II  Ibid.    Niles's  Register,  December  27,  1823. 


24 

the  minds  of  the  caucus  Adams  was  the  logical  candidate  for  the 
Presidency,  though  they  were  willing  that  Mr.  Pinckney 
should  fill  the  subordinate  position.*  But  Adams 
had  become  very  unpopular  with  many  of  the  Federalists 
in  the  country,  and  it  was  feared  that  he  could  not  receive  a  re- 
election.t  It  was  therefore  openly  declared  that  no  preference 
was  given  one  candidate  over  the  ofher,  in  order  that  the  party 
might  be  appeased  by  the  hope  of  electing  Mr.  Pinckney  to  the 
higher  office. |  But  a  member  of  the  caucus  informed  his  con- 
stituents in  a  private  letter,  that  it  was  the  distinct  wish  of  the 
meeting  that  Adams  and  not  Pinckney  should  be  President,  and 
efforts  were  made  in  Boston  and  elsewhere  to  have  the  electors 
throw  away  a  part  of  their  votes,  lest  Pinckney  should  receive 
more  votes  than  Adams.  II 

Secret  machinations  of  this  character  were  not  likely 
to  decrease  the  unfavorable  criticism  which  the  cau- 
cus at  once  met.  For  in  spite  of  their  long  famil- 
iarity with  the  system  in  its  undeveloped  form,  the 
minds  of  many  people  were  becoming  strongly  prejudiced 
against  it,  and  "  for  any  persons,  particularly  Legislators,  to 
meet  and  consult  on  the  subject  of  candidates  for  office  "  was 
considered  a  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  the  people.l  The  di- 
rectors of  public  opinion  were  zealous  in  heaping  abuse  upon  the 
practice,  and  an  editorial  in  the  "  Aurora "  denounced  the 
Federal  caucus  of  1800  as  a  "  Jacobinical  conclave."  §  James 
McHenry  plainly  expressed  disapproval  of  the  lack  of  open 
action.     "  They  wfite   private   letters   to    each   other,"  he   said, 


*  Niles's  Register,  February  28,  1824.     Gibbs,  II.,  898. 

t  Letter  of  George  Cabot  to  Alexander  Hamilton,  Angust  21,    1800;  Gibbs, 
II.,  407.     Cf.  Hamilton,  VI.,  436,  440.  441,  446. 

:  Letters  of  James  McHenry,  May  20  and  July  22,  1800  ;  Gibbs,  II  ,   346- 
347  ;  384,  407.     Hamilton.  Works  VI.,  436,  441. 

II  Letters   of  George   Cabot,   July  20  and  August  23,  1800 ;  and  Ebenezer 
Huntington,  August  6,  1800  :  Gibbs,  II.,  384,  398,  407. 

t  Columbian  Centinel.  Feb.  18.  1804. 

§  Niles's  Register,  Dec.  27,  1823,    quotes   this  from  the  "  Aurora,"  Feb.  19 
1800. 


25 

writing  of  the  Federal  caucus,  "  but  they  do  nothing  to  give  a 
proper  direction  to  the  pubhc  mind.  They  observe,  even  in  their 
conversation,  a  discreet  circumspection  generally,  ill  calculated  to 
diffuse  information,  or  prepare  the  mass  of  the  people  for  the 
result.  They  deliberate  in  private.  Can  good  come  out  of  such 
a  system  ?  "*  Senator  Nathaniel  Macon,  a  member  of  the  Re- 
publican caucus,  declared  in  the  meeting  that  the  intrigues  and 
politically  impure  principles  which  they  were  inaugurating  were 
the  "  seed  of  division  "  and  the  forerunner  of  the  fall  of  the 
party.t 

The  most  bitter  denunciation  which  the  caucus  had  yet  faced 
appeared  in  1803  in  a  book  by  Benjamin  Austin,  "  Under  what 
authoiity  did  these  men  pretend  to  dictate  their  nomination?  " 
he  demands,  "  Did  they  receive  six  dollars  a  day  for  the  double 
purpose  of  caucusing  and  legislating  ?  Do  we  send  members  to 
Congress  to  cabal  once  in  four  years  for  President  ?  Or  are  we 
arrived  to  such  a  pitch  of  Congressional  influence  that  what  they 
decide  is  to  be  binding  on  the  United  States  ?"  X  This  in- 
dignant protest  was  occasioned  by  the  too  presumptuous  tone 
of  "  Decius,"  a  political  pamphleteer  who  had  proudly  called 
on  the  country  to  respect  the  Congressional  nomination  as 
binding.  ||  However  patient  the  people  may  remain  while 
a  courteous  and  suppliant  power  is  in  reality  usurping  their  au- 
thority, they  will  not  for  an  instant  brook  the  imperious  note  of 
command.  This  "  Decius  "  learned  in  1803,  and  the  same  lesson 
was  more  deeply  impressed  upon  a  too  vainglorious  politician  in 
1808. 

A  deep-rooted  prejudice  was  from  the  outset  entertained 
against  the  caucus,  inasmuch  as  it  seemed  to  defeat  the  very  ob- 
jects for  which  it  had  been  devised.     For   as    we   have  seen,  the 


*  Gibbs,  II,  384.     Letter  of  Jas.  McHenry. 

t  See  Henry  Adams,  "  Life  of    Gallatin,"   595  :    Letter   from   Macon   to 
Gallatin.     Macon  states  that  he  never  again  attended  a  caucus  meeting. 
t  Austin,  "  Constitutional  Republicanism,"  87  ff. 
|i  Ibid. 


26 

need  for  nominations  had  arisen  from  the  unwillingness  of  the 
people  to  deprive  themselves  of  the  right  of  election.  The  people 
continued  to  grow  more  and  more  jealous  of  their  rights,  and  hav- 
ing turned  the  electoral  college  into  a  machine  for  registering  the 
votes  of  the  nation,  they  directed  their  attention  toward  the  no- 
minating system  ;  did  not  the  caucus  rob  them  of  their  prerogative  ? 
True,  it  was  easy  to  argue  that  the  proceedings  of  the  caucus 
were  not  nominations,  but  merely  recommendations  of  a  select  class 
of  representatives  to^their  constituents  ;  that  the  recommendation 
was  not  compulsory,  for  it  left  the  people  free  to  follow 
their  own  judgment.  But  in  reality  was  not  the  recommenda- 
tion most  stringently  binding  ?  Armed  with  the  authority 
and  influence  which  attached  to  the  names  of  its  authors,  it 
turned  the  "  freedom  of  election  "  of  the  people  into  a  silly  farce, 
a  by-word  for  the  Congressional  dictators.  This  was  the  argu- 
ment of  Benjamin  Austin,  pioneer  of  the  anti-caucus  movement, 
and  of  countless  followers. 

But  in  certain  respects  their  argument  cannot  bear  the  light. 
It  cannot,  indeed,  be  denied  that  to  the  Congressional  "  recom- 
mendation "  was  attached  all  the  weight  of  the  nominations  by  our 
present  national  convention.  Had  it  been  otherwise,  it  would 
have  failed  to  attain  its  end,  for  it  was  designed  to  secure  union 
of  the  w^hole  party,  and  this  it  was  enabled  to  do  largely  by 
virtue  of  the  influence  of  its  members,  as  Congressmen.  But  that 
it  possessed  the  boundless  dictatorial  power  attributed  to  it  we 
cannot  believe.  Then,  as  now,  the  members  of  a  party  had  the 
privilege  of  "  bolting."  They  might  either  vote  for  the  candidate 
of  the  opposing  party  or  support  an  independent  candidate  of 
their  own,  which  was  done  as  early  as  1812.  The  caucus  was  not 
so  omnipotent  that  it  could  lead  the  people  whither  it  would,  and 
as  soon  as  it  attempted  to  disregard  the  sacred  will  of  the  major- 
ity it  compassed  its  own  destruction. 

The  protests  against  the  first  open  assumption  by  members  of 
Congress  of  the  right  to  choose  the  party  candidates  did  not 
seriously  threaten  the  survival  of  the  custom.     For  not  only  was 


27 

it  difficult  for  an  organized,  universal  opposition  to  be  at  once 
aroused  against  an  institution  which  had  arisen  so  gradually 
and  so  harmlessly,  but  the  practice  apparently  had  the  sanction 
of  necessity.  The  two  proper  functions  of  a  nominating  body  in 
a  republican  government  are  to  ascertain  the  will  of  the  majority 
of  the  people  whom  it  represents,  and  to  endeavor  to  secure  the 
consent  of  the  minority  to  the  majority  rule.  In  1800  the  will  of 
each  party,  save  perhaps  for  the  less  important  office,  was  un- 
mistakable. The  Eepublican  party  could  have  no  candidate  but 
Jefferson,  and  John  Adams,  in  spite  of  his  growing  unpopularity, 
was  really  the  only  logical  candidate  of  the  Federalists.  The 
question  before  each  party  was  therefore,  how  to  secure  the  elec- 
tion of  its  chosen  candidate.  For  as  soon  as  Washington  retired 
from  the  field  the  office  of  President  became  the  goal  of 
all  politicians.  So  closely  contested  was  the  rivalry  for 
the  position  that  if  the  party  did  not  concentrate  its 
vote  on  a  particular  candidate  it  was  sure  to  fail.*  No  other 
method  appeared  by  which  efficient  union  could  be  effected  than 
for  members  of  the  party  in  Congress  to  designate  who,  in  their 
opinion,  were  the  proper  candidates. 

But  the  fact  that  almost  from  the  first  the  caucus  was 
tolerated  as  a  necessity  rather  than  commended,  betrays  a  fatal 
weakness  in  the  system.  An  objectionable  device  which  may  for 
a  time  be  sufferable  in  the  face  of  a  threatening  danger  must  of 
necessity  be  rejected  so  soon  as  that  danger  is  removed,  and  the 
advocate  of  its  further  continuance  will  not  be  respected.  It  is 
evident  therefore  that  the  caucus  stood  in  1800  in  a  precarious 
position.  Born  of  uncertainty  and  disquiet ;  adopted  in  per- 
plexit}^  half-unconsciously ;  opposed  by  prejudice  and  tradition, 
and  supported  only  half-heartedly,  it  ,would  soon  be  forced  to 
prove  its  own  fitness  to  live. 

The  ability  of  the  caucus  to  make  its  way  under 
such  unfavorable  conditions  was  greatly  impaired  by  its  lack 
of  constitutional  warrant.     On  account   of   this   lack  it   was  con- 

*  Cf.  Niles's  Register,  Feb.  28,  1824.   Perkins,  "  Historical  Sketches,"  52,  53. 


28 

stantly  subjected  by  the  jealous  apprehension  of  the  people  to 
the  charge  of  unconstitutionality.  They  forgot  *that  the  entile 
complexion  of  political  affairs  had  changed  since  the  adoption  of. 
the  new  government,  and  that  the  passive  role  of  obedience  which 
had  been  thrust  upon  the  electoral  college,  the  responsibility  and 
authority  assumed  in  election  by  themselves,  and  the  entire  sys- 
tem of  nominations  and  pre-concerted  arrangements,  would  have 
been  no  less  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  framers  than  the 
practice  of  the  Congressional  caucus.  But  whether  well  founded 
or  not,  the  charge  of  unconstitutionality  afforded  the  opponents 
of  the  custom  a  convenient  handle  by  which  to  wield  their  argu- 
ments against  usurpation  of  rights  and  the  prevalence  of  intrigue, 
and  "  unconstitutional  "  was  the  opprobrious  epithet  hurled  with 
most  telling  effect  at  this  new  creation  of  the  great  American  ex- 
periment in  government. 

From  the  weakness  of  its  constitutional  position  the 
caucus  wore  more  or  less  the  aspect  of  a  usurper  ;  of  au 
innovation  and  an  anomaly  in  the  midst  of  republican 
institutions.  It  was  on  this  account  more  difficult  for  it 
to  Avin  the  conBdence  and  respect  of  the  people  ;  its  proceedings 
were  easier  to  disregard,  and  the  prejudice  against  it  move  diffi- 
cult to  overcome.  There  was  no  prescribed  method  by  which 
the  meetings  should  be  convoked,  and  this  gave  the  officious 
Senator,  who  had  by  chance  presided  over  the  meeting  in  1804, 
an  opportunity  to  issue,  in  offensive  tone,  a  formal  call  for  the 
next  caucus.  Nor  was  there  any  rule  by  which  the  invitjitions 
should  be  extended  to  some  and  withheld  from  others,  and  thus 
the  representation  of  the  party  depended  on  the  caprice  of  a  few 
leaders.  In  1808  a  delegate  from  one  of  the  territories,  who 
therefore  was  entitled  to  no  vote  in  elections,  was  said  to  have 
been  present  b}'  invitation  at  the  caucus,  and  the  people  asked 
in  vain  for  au  explanation  of  the  principles  of  representa- 
tion.*    The    country     was    certainly    justified    in     maintaining 


*  U.  S.  Gazette,   Jan.  28,   1808,  March  10,  1808,  see   "Address   to   the  Peo- 
ple." 


29 

that, "  if  a  nomination  is  made  and  presented  to  the  people,  it 
behooves  them  to  know  by  whom  it  is  made,  and  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  done."  * 

In  its  imperfect  representation  of  the  national  party  interests, 
the  Congressional  caucus  found  its  weakest  point.  A  nominat- 
ing body  should  be  representative  of  the  party  in  all  sections  of 
the  country,  and  this  the  system  adopted  by  the  caucus  man- 
agers was  not.  The  States  or  districts  which  were  represented 
in  Congress  by  the  Federalists  would  not  be  included  in  a  call 
"  to  the  Eepublican  members  of  Congress,"  and  hence  the  Re- 
publicans living  in  those  sections  would  have  no  voice  in  the 
nomination.  To  remove  this  objection  the  State  Legislatures 
sometimes  issued  Special  invitations  to  delegates  from  the  non- 
represented districts,  and  in  at  least  one  instance  this  step  seems 
to  have  been  taken  by  the  Congressional  caacus.t  But  such  a 
system  was  impracticable,  even  if  desired,  on  a  national  scale  ; 
for  how  could  the  delegates  be  recompensed  for  the  ex- 
pense and  fatigue  of  a  journey  to  the  seat  of  government 
to  partake  in  a  single  evening's  work  ?  At  its  very  best  there- 
fore the  caucus  was  only  partially  representative. 

Furthermore,  an  important  element  in  the  downfall  of  the 
caucus  was  in  the  fact  that  the  meetings  were  rendered  even  more 
unsatisfactory  as  a  representative  body  than  they  might  have 
been.  The  statistics  show  that  eighty-six  per  cent,  of  the  Ee- 
publican members  of  Congress  was  the  highest  ever  reached,  and 
in  no  other  meeting  of  which  we  have  statistics  did  the  number 
equal  seventy-five  per  ceut.t  This  was  because  many  Senators 
and  Representatives  refused  to  countenance  by  their  presence  the 
proceedings  of  a  body  of  so  doubtful  character  and  so  poorly 
authorized  to  declare  the  will  of  the  party.  But  though  acting 
from  laudable  motives,  they  followed   an   unwise  course,  bringing 


*  U.  S.  Gazette,  Jan.  28,  1808. 

t  Ibid. 

X  Vide  "  Niles's  Register,"  Feb.  28.  1824,  for  tabulated  statistics 


30 

down  upon  the  caucus  much  odium  that  it  need  not  have  in- 
curred, and  thus  hastening  its  abolition. 

In  1804  caucus  meetings  were  for  the  first  time  held  openly, 
and  that  year  marks  the  height  of  the  rising  influence  of  the 
nominating  caucus.  With  the  next  election  the  protests,  which 
previously  had  been  scattered  and  of  little  immediate  effect, 
centered  in  a  vigorous  storm  which  continued  with  only  brief 
periods  of  abatement  until  it  swept  away  the  offensive  institution 
and  left  the  ground  bare  and  desolate,  and  ready  for  a  new 
structure.  The  Federalists  in  1804  nominated  on  an  oflScial 
ticket,  Eufus  King  and  Charles  C.  Pinckney,  but  details  of  the 
proceedings  in  this  year  are  wanting.*  The  declining  party 
ceased  to  take  a  considerable  part  in  future  Presidental  elections  ; 
and  although  an  organization  was  maintained  for  several  years, 
and  candidates  placed  in  nomination,  no  regular  system  appears 
to  have  been  followed.  The  Republican  caucus  met  on  Feb.  25, 
and  unanimously  nominated  Thomas  Jefferson  for  President, 
after  which  George  Clinton  was  easily  chosen  on  the  first  ballot 
for  the  second  position.t 

A  favorite  argument  with  which  the  Republican  advocates  of 
the  caucus  tried  to  strengthen  its  position  was  the  success  of 
1800,  which  they  asserted  was  due  to  the  efficiency  of  the  caucus 
organization.:}:  The  unconcealed  proceedings  of  1804  met  with 
little  opposition,  and  in  1808  a  further  step  was  taken  toward 
public  recognition  of  the  practice.  On  January  19  the  members 
of  Congress  were  astonished  on  being  informed  by  a  circular  that 
Stephen  R.  Bradley,  in  pursuance  of  powers  vested  in  him  as 
President  of  the  late  convention,  deemed  it  expedient,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  nominating  candidates  for  the  next  presidential  election, 
to  call  a  meeting  of  the  Republican  members  to  meet  in  the 
Senate  Chamber   at  six    o'clock   on  Saturday  evening,  at   which 


*  Columbian  Centinel,  Feb.  29,  1804,  March  3,  1804. 

t  N.  Y.  Herald,  March  3,  1804. 

t  Benton,  "  Abridgment  of  Debates,"  VII.,  532. 


31 

time  aud  place  their  personal  attendauce  was  requested,  to  aid  at 
the  meeting.* 

This  presumption  on  the  part  of  Senator  Bradley  called 
forth  a  series  of  vigorous  protests  against  the  methods 
and  practices  of  the  caucus  and  the  arrogance  of  the  call.  Mr. 
Bradley's  pompous  notice  was  followed  by  a  mocking  placard 
which  stated  with  effective  sarcasm  that  in  pursuance  of  similar 
powers  vested  in  him,  Josiah  Masters;  deemed  it  expedient,  for 
the  purpose  of  not  nominating  candidates  for  President  or  Vice- 
President,  not  to  call  a  convention  to  meet  in  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber on  Saturday  at  six  o'clock,  at  which  time  and  place  the  per- 
sonal attendance  of  the  Republican  members  was  not  requested. t 
Another  Senator  addressed  Mr.  Bradley  directly,  declaring  utter 
abhorrence  of  his  "  usurpation  of  power,  mandatory  style,  and 
object  contemplated."  |  He  denied  the  right  of  his  colleague  to 
call  upon  the  Republican  members  in  this  manner,  and 
refused  to  countenance  their  "  midnight  intrigues."  Other 
protests  called  in  question  the  personal  motives  of  Mr.  Bradley, 
aud  it  was  even  suggested  that  he  had  some  sinister 
design  in  calling  the  meeting  for  Saturday  evening, 
which  was  considered  by  people  in  New  England 
as  j)iirt  of  the  Sabbath,  so  that  many  would  refuse  to  join  the 
deliberations  on  this  account.  II  George  Clinton,  the  recipient  of 
the  Vice-Presidential  nomination,  was  offended  because  his  con- 
sent had  not  been  sought  for  the  use  of  his  name,  and  com- 
plained that  he  first  learned  of  the  meeting  only  by  accident  on 
the  day  appointed. IF 

Meanwhile  the  party  leaders  were  divided  in  opinion  as  to  the 
best  cour.-e  to  follow  ;  some  were  eager  to  hold  the  caucus  as  soon 
as  possible,  but  others  thought  that  advantage    could   be  gained 


*  U.  S.  Gazette,  Jan.  38,  1808. 

t  Niles's  Register,  December  20,  1823. 

X  Ibid. 

II  U.  S.  Gazette,  Feb.  4,  1808. 

1  Hammond,  "  Political  Parties,"  I,  264. 


32 

by  delay.*  At  the  appointed  time,  however,  the  meeting  was 
held.  The  proceedings  were  conducted  with  Httle  opposition, 
practical  unanimity  prevailing  as  to  choice  of  candidates.  Of 
eighty-nine  votes  cast  for  President,  James  Madison  received 
all  but  six,  and  Clinton  was  chosen  with  as  little  opposition  for 
Vice-President.t  In  order  to  ensure  the  success  of  this 
ticket  a  committee,  consisting  of  one  member  from  each  State 
that  was  represented  in  the  caucus,  was  appointed  to  manage  the 
campaign. 

Before  adjourning,  the  caucus,  fully  conscious  of  the  opposi- 
tion their  action  would  encounter,  decided  to  accompany  their 
nominations  with  an  explanatory  resolution.  This  Mas  drawn  by 
Mr.  Giles,  of  Virginia,  and  was  unanimously  adopted.  The  report 
stated  that  in  making  their  nominations  the  congressmen  "  have 
acted  only  in  their  individual  characters  as  citizens  "  and  "  that 
they  have  been  induced  to  adopt  this  measure  from  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  from  a  deep  conviction  of  the  importance  of  union 
to  the  Republicans  throughout  all  parts  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  present  crisis  of  both  our  external  and  internal  affairs,"  X 

But  this  apology  caused  no  lull  in  the  storm  of  opposition. 
Early  in  March  a  formal  protest,  addressed  to  "  the 
People  of  the  United  States,"  was  issued  over  the 
signatures  of  seventeen  prominent  congressmen,  among  whom 
were  Josiah  Masters,  George  Clinton  Jr.,  Samuel  Maday  and 
John  Randolph.  The  protest  objected  to  "  the  mode  in  which 
the  meeting  was  summoned  "  and  to  "  the  proceedings  after  it 
was  convened."  They  "  proceeded  without  discussion  or  debate," 
the  paper  complains,  "  to  determine  by  ballot  the  candidates  for 
the  highest  offices  in  the  union.  The  characters  of  different  men 
and  their  pretensions'  to  the  public  favor  were  not  suffered  to  be 
canvassed,  and  all   responsibility  was   avoided   by   the    mode   of 


*  U.  S.  Gazette,  Jan.  28,  1808. 

t  U.  S.  Gazette,   Feb.    1,    1808;  National   Intelligencer,  Jan.  20,  1808,  also 
May  21,  1812. 

t  U.  S.  Gazette,  March  10,  1808,  Address  to  the  people. 


33 

selection.  The  determination  of  this  conclave  has  been  pub- 
lished as  the  act  of  the  Eepublican  party,  and  with  as  much 
exultation  as  the  result  of  a  solemn  election  hy  the  nation."  A 
solemn  protest  was  therefore  entered  against  tbe  proceedings  of 
the  caucus  as  being  "in  direct  hostility  to  the  principles  of  the 
Constitution  ;  as  a  gross  assumption  of  powder  not  delegated  by 
the  people,"  and  as  "  an  attempt  to  produce  an  undue  bins  in  the 
ensuing  election  of  President  and  Vice-President,  and  virtually 
to  transfer  the  appointment  of  those  officers  from  the  people  to  a 
majority  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress."  * 

It  was  probably  due  in  part,  at  least,  to  the  ripening  hostility 
with  England  that  the  caucus  was  allowed  to  continue  its  career 
in  1812  with  comparatively  little  opposition.  What  opposition 
there  was  centered  chiefly  against  the  re-election  of  Madison,  and 
the  so-called  "  Virginia  dictation."  In  spite  of  the  unanimity 
which  prevailed  in  the  caucus  of  1808,  the  nomination  of  Madison 
met  with  much  disfavor  throughout  the  country, t  and  in  1812 
organized  efforts  were  made  to  prevent  his  re  election.  A  caucus 
of  bolters  from  the  Republican  nominations  met  at  Albanj',  in 
which  ninety-one  of  ninety-five  republican  members  of  the 
State  legislature  were  present,  and  declared  unani- 
mously in  favor  of  DeWitt  Clinton,  the  Federalist  candi- 
date. X  This  meeting  was  the  result  of  a  secret  caucus 
which  had  been  held  at  Albany  in  March  "  to  ascertain  the  force 
which  could  be  rallied  in  that  State  in  opposition  to  the  re-election 
of  "'^  *  Madison,"  and  which  had  appointed  a  committee 
of  nine  to  sound  the  other  States  on  the  subject.  I!  But  the 
strength  of  the  South,  led  by  "  Old  Virginia,"  rendered  such  op- 
position powerless  to  prevent  the  re-nomination  and  re-election 
of  Madison. 

The  Republican  caucus  of  this  year  was  called  by  notice  pub- 


*  U.  S.  Gazette,  March  10,  1808,  "  Address  to  the  People." 

t  See  U.  S.  Gazette,  Feb.  8,  1808,  March  7,  1808. 

t  National  Intelligencer,  June  4,  1812,  Niles's  Register,  June  fi,  1812, 

II  National  Intelligencer,  March  26,  1812. 


34 

lished  in  the  semi-official  "  National  Intelligencer,"  for  tlie  pur- 
pose of  "  designating  such  persons  as  tliey  may  think  proper  to 
be  supported  as  candidates  *  *  *  at  the  ensuing  election."  * 
The  meeting,  held  on  the  19th  of  Ma}',  was  a  less  satisfactory 
representation  than  the  caucus  of  1808  had  been.  Of  the  fifty- 
one  Republicans  absent  many  gave  disapproval  of  the  method  of 
the  caucus  as  their  reason,  while  others  refused  to  attend  through 
dislike  of  Mr.  Madison. t  After  unanimously  nominating 
Madison  for  President,  and  deciding  in  favor  of  John  Langdon 
for  Yice-President,  the  meeting  followed  the  example  i)f 
its  predecessor  and  declared  that  the  members  had  acted  only  in 
their  "individual  characters  as  citizens,"  with  a  deep  conviction 
of  the  importance  of  union  *  *  *  in  the  present  crisis  of  our 
public  affairs."  A  "  committee  of  correspondence  and  arrange- 
ment," consisting  of  eighteen  men  from  the  different  States  was 
appointed  to  give  weight  to  their  nomination.]:  Subsequently,  a 
second  caucus  meeting  was  called  to  fill  the  place  left  vacant  by 
the  resignation  of  John  Langdon,  and  Elbridge  Gerry  received 
the  nomination.  II 

The  quiet  of  1812,  far  from  indicating  any  tendency  on  the 
part  of  the  people  to  become  reconciled  to  this  new  custom  which 
had  grown  up  in  their  midst,  was  rather  only  the  calm 
before  the  storm.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  course  of 
successive  triumphs  and  disasters  which  the  caucus  takes  on 
its  way  to  final  overthrow.  Although  at  times  the  energy 
of  the  opposition  and  the  vigor  of  the  attacks  were  diminished, 
and  the  caucus  was  permitted  to  pursue  its  designs  in 
comparative  quiet,  there  was  at  no  time  reason  to  think  that 
its  existence  could  be  permanent.  From  the  year  1808,  when  the 
first  fusillade  of  arguments  and  reproaches  cleared  a  path  for  later 


"/W(^.,  May  16,  1812. 
t  Cf.  Niles's  Register,  Feb.  28,  1824. 
t  National  Intelligencer,  May  19,  1812- 
II  Ibid.,  June  11,  1812. 


35 

attacks,  it  was  evident  that  the  career  of  the  caucus  was  limited 
by  circumstances  over  which  the  power  of  politicians  had  no 
control,  and  the  most  discerning  persons  awaited  the  not  distant 
day  when  a  system  so  full  of  evils  might  be  replaced  by  a  more 
able  successor. 

The  proceedings  of  1816  are  full  of  interest.  On  the  12tli  of 
March  a  number  of  the  Republican  Congressmen  asseQ)bled, 
pursuant  to  an  anonymous  notice  which  had  been  issued  to  each 
of  the  Republican  members  personally,  "  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  into  consideration  the  propriety  of  recommending"  can- 
didates.* This  preliminary  meeting,  which  was  thus  a  tacit 
recognition  of  the  questionable  propriety  of  the  caucus,  re- 
solved, "  in  order  to  obtain  a  more  general  expression  of  the  sen- 
timent of  the  Republicans,"  to  hold  a  caucus,  the  invitations  for 
which  were  to  l)e  extended  by  notice  in  the  Washington  papers. t 
On  Saturday,  March  16th,  one  hundred  and  eighteen  members  of 
the  Senate  and  the  House,  together  with  one  delegate,  assembled 
with  some  uncertainty  still  felt  as  to  the  advisability  of  declaring 
nominees,:}: 

After  organization  and  appointment  of  otficers  the  meeting 
proceeded  to  the  business  before  it,  and  Henry  Clay  submitted 
the  resolution  "  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  make,  in  caucus,  any 
recommendation  to  the  good  people  of  the  United  States,  of 
persons,  in  the  judgment  of  this  meeting,  fit  and  suitable  to 
fill  the  offices  of  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United 
States."  The  question  on  this  resolution  being  determined  in 
the  negative,  Mr.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  submitted  a  similar 
resolution  declaring  the  inexpediency  of  the  caucus.  This 
resolution,  the  spirit  and  form  of  which  differed  in 
no  respect  from  that  of  the  first,  was  also  defeated, 
and  the  meeting  proceeded  without  further  discussion 
to       the      recommendation.         The      balloting      gave      James 


*  Niles'8  Register,  March  23,  1816. 

t  Ibid. 

X  American  Register,  II,  453. 


3() 

Monroe  sixty-five  votes,  and  Wm.  H.  Crawford  fifty-four  votes, 
for  the  Presidential  candidate,  and  Daniel  D.  Tompkins,  of  New 
York,  was  named  for  Vice-President.  Monroe  and  Tompkins 
were  accordingly  named  as  the  party  standard-bearers.* 

But  when  the  alarming  fact  was  made  known  to  the  country 
that  had  only  six  of  the  caucussers  who  voted  for  Monroe  de- 
clared instead  for  Crawford,  the  latter  would  have  received  the 
nomination,  the  protests  which  had  been  quieted  in  1812  burst 
forth  once  more.  The  caucus  proceedings  were  regarded  as  an 
attempt  on  the  part  of  the  strong  Crawford  faction  to  place  their 
favoiite  ahead  of  the  man  who  was  undoubtedly  the  choice  of  the 
people,  and  the  narrow  margin  by  which  this  "spurious  and  un- 
hallowed act "  t  bad  failed,  reminded  the  people  how  poorly 
their  interests  were  safeguarded.  Although  the  caucus  in 
this  year  was  in  numbers  more  representative  of  the 
party  in  Congress  than  any  other  meeting  of  the 
kind,:}:  it  did  not  in  reality  represent  the  relative 
strength  of  the  two  aspirants.  The  anonymous  call  was  under- 
stood to  have  proceeded  from  the  friends  of  Crawford,  and  the 
friends  of  Monroe  refused  to  attend  a  meeting  on  such  an  invita- 
tion. II  Hence  there  was  reason  for  the  estimate  made  by  the 
"  National  Intelligencer,"  that  of  the  twenty-four  absentees  more 
than  three-fourths  were  friendly  to  the  election  of  Monroe.lF 

The  following  editorial  comment  in  the  "Intelligencer"  ex- 
pressed a  sentiment  rapidly  becoming  universal.  "  If  caucussing 
*  *  *  be  necessary  among  parties  to  secure  unity  of  action, 
would  it  not  be  expedient  to  devise  some  more  equitable  method 
than  the  present ;  some  method  which  shall  more  truly  refract 
the  sense  of  the  people  from  dift'erent  parts  of  the  country,  with- 
out interference  with  the  official  duties  of  the  members   of   Con- 


*  American  Register,  II,  453.     Niles's  Register,  March  23,  1816. 

t  See  Perkins,  "  Historical  Slietches,"  51  ff. 

t  Niles,  Feb.  28,  1824. 

II  National  Intelligencer,  March  13,  1816. 

t  Ibid.     March   19,  1816. 


37 

gress,  and  without  being  subject  to  the  influence  of  considerations 
which  ought  to  have  no  bearing  on  the  question  ?  Some 
method,  which  shall  represent  all  the  Republicans  in 
the  United  States,  and  not  those  sections  of  country 
only  which  send  Eepublicau  representatives  at  the 
moment  ?  *  *  *  Should  the  day  unfortunately  ever  arrive 
when  a  nomination  shall  be  made  adverse  to  the  public  sentiment 
the  evil  of  this  system  will  be  felt."  * 

In  consequence  of  the  "  Era  of  good  feeliugs"  which  followed 
the  electiou  of  Monroe,  there  was  no  need  of  a  nomination  in  1820. 
To  be  sure,  an  attempt  was  made  by  a  few  to  hold  a  meeting  for 
the  purpose  of  declaring  nominations,  but  it  was  favored  by  so 
few  that  it  was  decided  to  be  impolitic  to  take  any  action,  t  A 
general  opinion  prevailed  that  the  caucus  had  at  last  died  a 
natural  death,  and  that  its  failure  in  this  year  was  the  last  gasp  of 
the  dying  system.  But  the  country  was  not  to  be  rid  of  the  cau- 
cus so  easily.  Rising  again  in  1824  it  called  into  decisive  conflict 
all  the  forces  on  each  side,  the  champions  and  opponents  of  its 
methods.  The  "  Era  of  good  feelings  "  proved  in  reality  an  era 
of  very  turbulent  feelings,  and  the  whole  nation  was  shaken  by 
the  clash  of  the  opposing  forces. 

As  early  at  least  as  the  second  year  of  Monroe's 
second  administration  there  began  to  be  much  conjecture 
and  scheming  as  to  his  successor  in  office.:!:  John  Quiucy  Adams, 
Calhoun,  Clay,  DeWitt  Clinton,  Crawford  and  Tompkins  were 
proposed  in  various  quarters  as  candidates,  not  to  mention  a 
dozen  others  who  had  aspirations.  II  The  more  prominent  of 
these  candidates  were  so  evenly  matched,  that  it  early  became  a 
serious  question  as  to  how  a  decision  could  be  effected  when 
the  matter    came   to    an    issue.     Now,  if  ever,  there  was  need  of 


*  National  Intelligencer,  April  9,  1816. 

t  National  Intelligencer,  April  8, 1820  ;  April  11,  1830  ;  Niles's  Register,  May 
29,  1819;  April  15,  1820. 

t  Niles's  Register,  January  19, 1832  ;  January  25,  1823. 
II  See  Niles's  Register,  January  36,  1833  ;  April  37,  1833. 


38 

union.  The  former  expedient  of  caucus  nominations  was  there- 
fore recalled,  and  the  great  political  question  of  the  day  centered 
on  the  practicability  of  reviving  the  custom. 

The  caucuses  of  1800  had  been  justified  on  the  plea  that  such 
action  was  necessary  to  secure  the  triumph  of  the  party  cause. 
With  the  disappearance  of  the  Federalist  party  as  an  im- 
portant factor  in  the  political  campaigns,  many  early 
advocates  of  the  caucus  as  a  necessary  party  expedient 
opposed  its  continuance,  as  no  longer  excused  by  the  plea  of 
necessity.  If  the  victory  of  the  party  was  assured  without  such  a 
device  it  ought  not  to  be  resorted  to,  they  said.*  According  to 
one  expression  of  this  view,  a  Congressional  caucus  is  legitimate 
only  when  there  are  rival  candidates  of  different  parties,  and  when 
within  the  same  party  there  are  two  or  more  candidates,  one  of 
whom  must  be  withdrawn  to  concentrate  the  force  of  the  party  on 
the  other,  that  victory  might  be  assured.t  Or,  as  otherwise 
phrased,  "  whenever  certain  sets  of  principles  are  to  be  supported 
or  opposed,  a  caucus  may  be  tolerated  as  the  means  of  extinguish- 
ing personal  views  and  promoting  union  among  the  adherents  or 
opponents  of  such  sets  of  principles  ;  but  when  a  caucus  is  got 
up  to  act  in  favor  of  an  individual,  separated  from  the  considera- 
tion of  any  peculiar  principles  which  he  proposes,  there  is  noth- 
ing that  ought  to  be  more  detested  by  a  free  reflecting  people.":): 

But  we  seriously  question  the  soundness  of  this  reason- 
ing which  condoned  the  caucus  in  1800  and  condemned 
it  in  1824.  In  1800  the  country  was  divided  into  two  great 
parties,  each  representing  defined  principles  and  policy,  and  each 
regarding  the  other  with  bitter  hatred.  In  1824  there  was  but 
one  party,  but  this  was  divided  into  factions,  personal  and  sec- 
tional, far  more  dangerous  than  the  most  bitter  party  division. 
When  the  division  is  between  parties,  the  triumph  of   one  means 


*See  Niles's    Register,   November   23,    1822;  January  26,   1822;  May  31, 
1823. 

tNiles's  Register,  August  16,  1823  ;  objections  of  "  Phocion." 
X  Niles's  Register,  January  26,  1822. 


39 

the  pursuance  of  one  policy  in  preference  to  another ;  between 
the  two  there  being,  probably,  to  an  impartial  observer,  but  little 
to  choose,  for  it  is  seldom  indeed  tliat  any  considerable  number 
of  the  people  can  be  united  in  measures  which  would  be  ruinous 
to  the  nation.  But  when  the  conflict  is  one  of  factions,  it  par- 
takes of  the  character  of  civil  strife,  wliich  augurs  no  good  for 
the  peace  of  the  country.  Is  not  a  device  which  secures  union 
and  harmony  at  such  a  time  even  more  serviceable  and  laudable 
than  one  which  answers  tlie  purpose  cf  mere  party  organization  ? 
Measures,  not  men,  say  the  opponents  of  the  caucus  ;  principles, 
not  persons.  But  on  a  question  of  measures  and  principles  the 
common  sense  and  the  integrity  of  the  people  can  be  more 
safely  trusted  than  when  personal  jealousies  and  autipathies  are 
at  war. 

This  view  is  well  expressed  in  a  report  presented  in  1824  to 
the  Virginia  legislature  :  "  With  five  candidates  for  the  Presi- 
dency, each  zealously  supported  by  his  immediate  adherents, 
enlisting  in  his  behalf  sectional  feelings  and  local  attachments, 
we  are  threatened  with  internal  schism.  *  *  *  Heretofore  the 
struggle  *  *  *  lias  been  carried  on  between  the  two  great 
parties,  *  *  *  but  no  geographical  line  was  drawn,  no  local 
feeling  engendered  by  reason  thereof.  *  *  *  (Now)  we  are 
threatened  with  the  array  of  State  against  State,  of  the  East 
against  the  West  and  the  North  against  the  South."  * 

With  five  candidates  so  evenly  matched  and  contesting  so 
keenly  for  the  honor,  it  was  certain  that  unless  some  means  were 
found  for  concentrating  the  votes  on  one  in  preference  to  the 
others,  no  one  could  receive  a  majority  in  the  electoral  college, 
and  the  election  would  therefore  be  thrown  into  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives. Some,  indeed,  were  so  sanguine  as  to  hope  that  means 
would  be  found  of  preventing  this,  but  the  later  course  of  events 
proved  that  their  hopes  were  not  founded  on   reason.     The  alter- 


*  Niles,  January  33,  18:i4 ;  see  also  Niles,  May  31,  1833,  quotation  from  the 
"  Albany  Argus." 


40 

native  of  a  choice  by  the  House  was  looked  upon  with  dread. 
It  had  not  been  regarded  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  as  a 
necessit}^  likely  to  arise,  but  the  experience  of  1801  had  taught 
the  people  to  look  upon  the  possibility  as  a  serious  peril.  Hence 
many  strong  opponents  of  the  principles  of  the  caucus  urgently 
advocated  its  continuance  till  a  better  method  might  be  devised.* 

It  was  unfortunate  *^^hat  the  country  could  not  yet  adopt  such 
a  national  convention  as  was  secured  less  than  ten  years  later. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  one  of  the  earliest  proposals  for 
such  a  convention,  which  appeared  in  1822,  outlined  a  system 
almost  identical  with  that  now  in  vogue.  To  prevent  unjust 
selections,  the  writer  says  the  people  "  must  choose  delegates  in 
all  the  States,  to  meet  in  some  central  place  *  *  *  to  select 
and  recommend  some  suitable  person  for  the  Presidency.  The 
delegates  so  chosen,  must  be  specially  instructed  by  their 
respective  States,  whom  to  svipport ;  and  the  delegates  so  chosen 
must,  in  no  case,  be  incumbents  (or  expectants)  of  office."  Thus 
far  we  see  in  this  only  the  present  national  convention.  The 
proposal  continues,  "  that  the  result  of  the  meeting  of  delegates 
be  published  for  the  consideration  of  the  American  people  ;  that, 
notwithstanding  any  selection  and  recommendation  by  a  conven- 
tion of  delegates,  the  electors,  when  chosen,  must  vote  independ- 
ently of  any  previous  recommendation  or  selection.  That,  from 
this  combined  expression  of  the  public  sentiment,  first  by  dele- 
gates chosen  to  select  and  recommend,  and,  second  by  electors 
chosen  to  elect,  no  donbt  the  best  and  most  honest  selection  and 
election  would  result."  t 

Early  in  the  following  year  a  Pennsylvania  delegate,  in  a  let- 
ter to  the  "  Franklin  Gazette,"  says  :  "  I  sincerely  hope  that 
Pennsylvania  will  take  the  lead  in  recommending  a  national  con- 
veotion.    It  is  the  only   plan    calculated   to  conciliate   and   har- 


*  Niles,  Dec.  7,  1832 ;  National-  Intelligencer,  July  23,  1823 ;    ^ug.  16,  1833. 
t  Niles.     February  23,  1822. 


41 

moiiize  tbe  Republican  party  throughout  the  union."*  The 
State  convention  system,  which  had  from  an  early 
time  been  familiar  in  connection  with  the  caucus, 
had  by  this  time  become  more  firmly  established,  and  in  Penn- 
sylvania the  legislative  caucus  had  been  replaced  by  the  conven- 
tion system. t  The  country  was  apparently  not  far  from  the 
adoption  of  the  national  convention.  But  the  movement  in  favor 
of  such  a  plan  had  not  yet  taken  sufficiently  definite  shape,  and 
the  caucus  remained  the  only  known  method  of  securing  union 
among  the  candidates. 

Tliat  the  caucus  proved  unable  to  satisfy  the  great  need  which 
the  country  brought  to  it  was  due  to  a  primary  defect  in  its  char- 
acter, of  which  we  have  already  spoken.  Owing  to  the  lack  of 
definite  organization  and  duly  recognized  authority  it  failed  to 
command  respect,  and,  being  not  a  truly  representative  body,  be- 
came an  evil  where  it  should  have  been  a  positive  good.  The 
almost  successful  attempt  on  the  part  of  Crawford's  friends  in 
1816  to  obtain  for  him  the  nomination  had  disgusted  and 
alarmed  the  nation.  But  had  the  legitimacy  of  the  caucus 
been  unquestioned  and  the  force  of  its  proceedings  generally 
recognized,  the  friends  of  Monroe  would  have  attended  the 
meeting  in  larger  numbers,  thus  saving  it  from  the  oppro- 
brium of  so  nearly  thwarting  the  will  of  the  people.  In  like 
manner,  had  the  caucus  in  1824  occupied  a  position  of  recognized 
dignity  and  validity,  such  as  the  nominating  convention  to-day 
enjoys,  it  would  have  commanded  the  attendance  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  Congress.  Assembled  from  every  district  in  the  union  ; 
informed  by  the  action  of  the  State  legislatures,  and  by  corres- 
pondence with  their  constituents  of  the  wishes  of  the  people 
whom  they  represented,  but  aware,  withal,  of  the  true  purpose  of 
a  nominating  body  to  ascertain  the  will  of  the  majority  and  to 
secure  the  compliance  of  the  minority  thereto,    they    would   have 


*  Ibid.    January  17,  1824. 
tNiles,  June  31,  1823. 


42 

united  on  a  candidate  who,  in  consequence,  would  have  probably 
received  the  support  of  a  majority  of  the  party. 

But  the  caucus  had  never  reached  a  position  where  it  could 
effect  so  great  a  good,  and  now,  being  unable  to  unite  the  sup- 
porters of  the  various  candidates  in  favor  of  any  one,  it  could  be 
of  no  avail.  The  five  candidates  centered  their  strength  in 
different  sections  of  the  country.  Clay  was  a  favorite  espe- 
cially in  the  West ;  Adams  was  distinctively  the  New  England 
heio;  Jackson  was  the  idol  of  his  own  State  ;  Calhoun  centered 
his  backing  chiefly  in  South  Carolina,  and  Crawford  w^as  strongest 
in  Georgia.*  Each  State  or  section  was  fearful  of  not  carrying 
its  favorite,  and  as  early  as  1822  candidates  were  formally  placed 
in  nomination  for  the  still  distant  presidential  election  by  State 
legislatures,  nearly  all  of  which  took  this  course."  t 

In  this  way  was  found  a  transitional  device  by  which  to  re- 
place the  caucus.  From  a  date  prior  to  the  rise  of  the  Con- 
gressional caucus  it  had  been  customary  for  State  legislatures  to 
take  action  in  supplying  the  offices  of  State  administration. | 
It  had  been  an  easy  and  a  natural  step  from  participation  in 
State  affairs  to  action  in  matters  of  national  interest,  and  at  least 
as  early  as  1812  it  had  become  the  practice  in  many  States 
to  hold  caucuses,  either  before  or  after  the  meeting  of  the 
Congressional  caucus,  to  anticipate  or  confirm  (or  it  might 
be,  oppose),  the  decisions  of  that  body.il  But 
besides  being  subject  to  most  of  the  faults  of  the  Congressional 
caucns,  these  legislative  caucuses  were  peculiarly  weak  in  being 
totally  unable  to  concentrate  the  votes  of  the  party  beyond  the 
State  limits.  The  legislative  method  was,  therefore,  more  pro- 
ductive  of   schism  and  discontent  than  of  union,  and  could   fill 


*  National  Intelligencer,  Aug.  20,  1823. 

tNiles's  Register,  Nov.  1,  1823  ;  Nov.  5,  1823;  May  3,  1828  ;  Oct.  25,  1823. 
National  Intelligencer,  Nov.  23,  1823  ;  Jan.  2,  1823,  et  al. 

t  See  J.  S.  Walton,  "Nominating  Conventions  in  Pennsylvania,"  Amer. 
Hisi.  Rev. 

II  See  Niles,  Mar.  21,  1812.  National  Intelligencer,  Mar.  3,1812;  Mar.  28, 
1812.  et  al. 


43 

only  in  a  very  unsatisfactory  manner  the  place  from  wbicli  the 
caucus  was  driven. 

It  did  not  occur  to  the  anti-caucus  agitators,  either  in  1816  or 
1824,  that  the  best  way  to  prevent  the  caucus  from  making  a 
choice  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  people  would  be  to  attend 
the  meeting  in  full  force,  and  thus  make  it  truly  representative. 
They  followed,  instead,  the  unwise  course  of  allowing  the  caucus 
to  earn  such  a  bad  reputation  that  it  must  succumb  to  the 
popular  indignation.  The  supporters  of  Mr.  Clay  and  of  Mr. 
Adams,  after  some  discussion  as  to  whether  they  should  "  doom 
the  caucus  to  a  positive  or  negative  death  ;  *  *  *  whether  they 
should  kill  the  monster  or  let  it  kill  itself,"  decided  to  let  it  kill 
itself.*  The  monster's  suicide  was  not  long  delayed,  but  it  was  ac- 
companied by  bitter  feelings  which  made  their  influence  felt  even 
through  the  Jacksonian  era. 

Meanwhile  the  floor  of  Congress  was  the  scene  of  a  prolonged 
and  heated  debate  in  which  the  subject  of  the  caucus  monopo- 
lized the  time  and  energies  of  even  the  digniJBed  Senate.  The 
subject  of  the  caucus  had  been  first  introduced  into  Congress  in 
1814  in  connection  with  the  proposed  change  by  amendment 
of  the  Constitution,  in  the  electoral  system.t  It  was  proposed  to 
choose  the  electors  uniformly  throughout  the  country  by  vote  in 
Districts,  and  it  was  thought  by  many  that  this  would  remove  the 
necessity  of  legislative  caucuses.  The  plan  was  still  in  discus- 
sion in  1824,  and  called  forth  from  Senator  King  the  first 
open  attack,  on  the  floor   of   Congress,    against   the    caucus. | 

The  proceedings  of  the  Crawford  nomination  had  been  made 
known,  and  Mr.  King  first  called  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  a 
*'  new,  extraordiiary,  self-created,  central  power,  stronger  than 
the  power  of  the  Constitution,  which  has  risen  up  at  the  seat  of 
government  ;  a  power  which  has  assumed  the  direction  and  con- 


*  National  Intelligencer,  Feb.  3,  1824. 

t  American  Register,  II,  67,  68. 

t  Benton's  Abridgment  of  Debates,  V,  110,  111,  117,  678  ;   VII,  517  ff. 


44 

tvol  of  the  fundamental  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  relative  to 
the  election  of  the  President."  This  was  the  inauguration  of  a 
debate  which  came  to  an  end  only  with  the  close  of  the  session, 
in  which  the  various  arguments  were  rehearsed  in  favor  of  and 
against  the  caucus. 

When  Congress  came  together  it  was  evident,  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  many  of  the  State  legislatures  had  passed  reso- 
lutions favoring  the  holding  of  a  caucus,  that  the  meeting  would 
be  attended  only  by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Crawford.*  An  attempt 
was  made  to  hold  a  meeting  on  Saturday,  December  27,  1823, 
but  so  few  responded  to  the  call  that  it  was 
postponed,  t  Before  a  second  attempt  was  made, 
twenty- four  members  of  Congress  took  pains  to  ascertain  the 
number  of  members  who  were  in  favor  of  a  caucus  nomination. 
Their  inquiries  elicted  "  satisfactory  information  "  that  of  261 
members,  181  deemed  it  inexpedient,  under  the  circumstances,  to 
hold  a  caucus.!  Notwithstanding  this,  a  formal  call,  signed  by 
eleven  members,  was  issued  for  the  14th  of  February.!! 

The  meeting  assembled,  but  so  poorly  was  it  attended  that 
the  empty  seats,  in  contrast  with  the  crowded  galleries,  pre- 
sented a  ridiculous  appearance,  and  Mr.  Markley,  of  Pennsylvania, 
proposed  that  the  meeting  be  adjourned  until  the  20th,  in  order 
to  afford  the  opponents  further  time  to  reflect.lF  But  the  mo- 
tion was  lost,  and  the  caucus,  composed  of  twenty-five  per  cent, 
of  the  Congress,  proceeded  to  a  ballot,  on  which  Mr.  Crawford 
received  sixty  votes  out  of  sixty-eight  cast  for  President,  and 
Albert  Gallatin  was  chosen  for  the  second  place  on  the  ticket. 
Concluding  their  report  with  the  customary  declaration  of 
merely  individual  responsibility  for  their  proceedings,  the  caucus 
further   ordered  an  address  to  the  people  to   be   prepared   by    a 


*  Niles,  Dec.  13,  1833. 

\  Ibid.,  Dec.  27,  1823. 

t  jSTatioual  Intelligenccp,  Feb.  7,  1824. 

II  Ibid. 

1  Ibid.,  Feb.  17,  1824. 


:':'l 


45 

select  committee,  Au  address  was  accordingly  drawn  up,  ex- 
pressing the  regret  of  the  meeting  that  the  course  had  not  been 
sanctioned  by  their  fellow-Congressmen,  and  declaring  their  be- 
lief in  the  necessity  of  such  action  in  order  to  prevent  divisions 
among  the  Eepublicans,  the  question  being,  in  their  judgment, 
"  one  touching  the  dismemberment  or  preservation  of  the  party."* 

This  was  the  last  Congressional  nominating  caucus.  So  in- 
tense was  the  disrepute  attached  to  its  final  attempt  to  "  dictate 
to  the  people "  that  never  again  could  its  revival  be  possible. 
There  followed  a  short  period  in  which  the  unsatisfactory  system 
of  scattered  State  nominations  was  able  to  secure  General  Jack- 
son's election,  and  by  the  next  campaign  the  national  convention 
had  appeared  to  solve  in  a  satisfactory  manner  the  long  unsettled 
question  of  presidential  nominations.  There  was  at  first, 
however,  felt  some  fear  lest  the  caucus  might  recover,  as  it  had 
done  in  1824,  from  an  apparent  annihilation,  and  efforts  were 
made  to  prevent  such  a  misfortune.  An  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution was  proposed,  which  provided  for  the  abolition  of  the 
electors,  substituting  a  direct  popular  vote.  If  no  one  received 
a  majorit;/  at  this  first  election,  a  second  should  be  held,  to 
choose  between  the  two  highest  candidates.  By  this  means  it 
was  thought  to  do  away  with  all  "  intermediate  agencies,"  elect- 
ors, caucuses  and  all.t  But  there  was  no  need  of  such  a  device. 
The  caucus,  as  a  machine  for  the  nomination  of  presidential 
candidates,  had  passed  out  of  existence. 

In  Washington's  Farewell  Address  we  read  the  following 
words  of  warning  :  "  All  combinations  and  associations  whatso- 
ever, under  whatever  plausible  character,  with  the  real 
design  to  direct,  control,  counteract  or  awe,  the  regular 
deliberation  and  action  of  the  constituted  authorities  are 
destructive  of  this  fundamental  principle  (of  the  Consti- 
tuition),  and  of  fatal  tendency.     They  serve  to  organize  factions  ; 


*  National  Intelligencer,  Feb.  17,  1824. 
t  Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  I,  78  ff. 


46 

*  "  *  to  put  ill  the  place  of  the  delegated  will  of  the  nation, 
the  will  of  a  party,  often  a  small  hut  artful  and  enterprising  mi- 
nority of  tlie  community.  -  *  *  However  comhinations 
or  associations  of  the  above  description  may  now 
and  then  answer  the  popular  ends,  they  are  likely, 
in  the  course  of  time  and  things,  to  become  polit- 
ical engines,  by  whicli  cunning,  ambitious,  and  unprincipled  men, 
will  be  enabled  to  subvert  the  power  of  the  people,  and  to  usurp 
for  tliemselves  the  reins  of  government,  destroying  afterwards  the 
very  engines  which  have  lifted  them  to  unjust  dominion."-  The 
Congressional  caucus  at  first  served  a  useful  purpose,  providing 
means  for  an  end  which  could  not  otherwise  be  attained.  But,  ill 
calculated  by  nature  to  win  the  confidence  of  the  people,  it  was 
not  designed  for  a  permanent  institution  of  government. 
Hindered  from  performing  its  true  functions  by  the  jealous 
timidity  with  \\Lich  it  was  regarded,  it  assumed  an 
even  more  dangerous  aspect  than  was  innate  in  it, 
and  was  led  by  the  anticipatory  apprehension  of  the  people,  to 
the  worst  that  had  been  prophesied.  It  was  therefore  inevit- 
able that  it  would  be  superseded  by  the  first  less  objectionable 
expedient  that  might  be  devised,  and  it  was  right  that  it  should. 
For  although  the  bridge  which  has  carried  us  over,  is  indeed  a 
good  bridge,!  so  long  as  it  remains  stable  and  secure,  he  would 
be  a  foolish  man  who  would  entrust  himself  to  a  tottering  plank 
passage  when  the  iron  structure  of  modern  workmanship  is  at 
hand.  But  nevertheless,  the  plank  bridge  which  once  carried  us 
safely  over  the  water  in  time  of  danger,  deserves  not  to  be  looked 
back  upon  with  contempt  as  soon  as  we  have  safely  reached  the 
shore  ;  neither  ought  we  to  condemn  the  caucus  without  a  thought 
of  the  work  it  once  accomplished. 


*  Washington,  Works,  XII.,  223. 

tBenton,  Abridgment  of  Debates,  VII,  533. 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


REC'D  LD 


M 


A- 


1959 


FEB     61987 


IBL  01,     JUN     3 


Nvr 


m 


